That is a strange strance to take. If the are taking steps to "redeem" themselves, trying to build up that trust by doing what you asked for in the first place, why still refuse? If this happens, MS will jump up several notches on my ladder.

Sounds too good to be true.I actually don't think all of their ideas were terrible, just taken to the extreme. I bet that they are rolling back some of the restrictions but they won't go as far as this article suggests.

Sounds too good to be true.I actually don't think all of their ideas were terrible, just taken to the extreme. I bet that they are rolling back some of the restrictions but they won't go as far as this article suggests.

I don't know whether I should be thanking Sony for unwillingly forcing Microsoft's hand (if true) and backing down from the most customer-hostile policies of any major company this century, or sad that Microsoft is NOT boneheaded enough to stay the course of driving their console business into the ground and exiting the market.

I trust Klepek's reporting and believe that Microsoft is considering major changes, but this sure seems like Microsoft is floating the idea out their first through anonymous sources to see how the concept is received. If Microsoft had indeed actively changed its DRM policy and was planning a full mea culpa, then I'd expect them to shouting it from the top of Mt. Rainier on their own terms rather than leaking info through back channels. I hope I'm wrong, of course.

Microsoft had no choice. Sony utterly gutted them with their announcements. Microsoft will already be having a hard time competing on price because of the Kinect requirement. They had to do something to make their platform compelling. And this was a very big step in the right direction.

Will be watching closely to see if this is really :A) A reversal, orB) "User education", as if "clearing up" their messaging or helping users "understand" how their shit works will reduce outrage.

If it's really so complicated enough that you need "education"-- and I did go to their official documents online and read through them-- it's probably not something that's simple and straightforward enough in the first place.

I just want to know how this will effect the platform as a whole.Namely about disk-less family share and if I now need to keep discs in the system to play a game.Because both of those items(for my situation) were really big bonus, but now looks like those will be dropped features.

Shame because MS could have solved this debacle in a MUCH more elegant way that still preserved their long term DD platform goals.

I would be a little disappointed if they announced a complete reversal. I'd rather they just add the ability to play offline as long as the disc is in the drive. I think that would satisfy a significant number of complainers while keeping those of us who actually like the changes happy.

Microsoft reversing policies doesn't absolve them from being "evil" to consumers... they're still just as "evil" as they were when they announced the policies. They're just responding to market forces that are showing that if they continue down this path, they're going to be in for a big surprise in Q1, 2014, when the number of consoles moved is lower than their estimate.

I wonder how this will affect their online game sharing. If there was anything positive about their connection requirements, it was that it enabled users to share games that aren't on disc a lot more easily.

Of course, that's not a sure thing either. I hope they don't rescind the downloaded games portion of the license, though. Sharing downloaded games was actually quite appealing to me since that's where the industry seems to be going.

Edit: Aaaaand it's gone. That was shortlived. I was actually excited about the implications for download-only games. Being able to play a game without putting the disc in was also a plus, however small. This is what happens when a community riots instead of encouraging reform where it's actually needed.

I would be a little disappointed if they announced a complete reversal. I'd rather they just add the ability to play offline as long as the disc is in the drive. I think that would satisfy a significant number of complainers while keeping those of us who actually like the changes happy.

What if any changes did they announce that are pro-consumer in any way?

This will never happen as long as Don Mattrick is still working there.

Hmm.. Linkedin just told me he's updated his profile.

Now all MS has to do to make this a real fight is to drop the other controversial issue of its being a $100 more expensive spy machine (guess that's 2 issues).

they have explicitly said you can turn off all features of the kinectquit spreading BS like an awful politician

Can I NOT have the Kinect? It cries that it's too low on my TV stand, and MS can go F itself if it thinks I like having that rectangular turd on top of my beautiful TV. It's ugly, useless, and makes the system cost $100 more.

Who didn't see this coming? It was always going to be "We listened to the fans and changed our minds" rather than admitting "We listened to our preorders not even meeting our worst expectations and changed our minds."

I think they should keep discs they way the current gen systems work. Put the disc in and you can play without any restrictions. If you want to install the game to the HDD then it's okay to have authentication (ideally one time but I'd even accept regular check-ins). So if you buy the game electronically or install it on the HDD you agree to authenticate. If you don't want to have to do that then buy and play it from the disc. Seems like a reasonable compromise.

Unless you're a console partisan, this would be unqualified welcome news.

Of course, it's still $100 too expensive. I'm guessing this rumor, if true, doesn't include Microsoft reducing the price to $400. Dropping these restrictions may make the Xbox One more appealing to early adopters and even out the rumored disparity in pre-orders versus the PS4 since most of the folks pre-ordering either consoles are likely to be core gamers who were most likely to be aware of and offended by the restrictions. However, it still doesn't address the barrier the $500 price puts up for the larger, less hardcore audience that isn't so game-centric. It's no small irony that a console designed in many ways to appeal to an audience broader than gamers is priced at a level that much of that audience isn't going to bite.

For Sony and their partisans, that $100 price advantage will continue to be the stick to beat Microsoft over the head with. Frankly, it's also the most powerful one as well - most of the general public doesn't know or care about the DRM restrictions but $100 cheaper is something everyone understands.

If they do it; it's because game publishers have told them they're really not interested in restricting used game sales.

IMO the way to do this is to sell the game at full price ($60) for a physical disc, and $50 for a digital copy that is non-transferrable. As time goes on, the price of the digital copy will go down. This accomplishes all of the goals that MS has in creating a "Steam for Consoles" without pissing people off.

They royally fucked up the messaging on this issue; so I think a press release that says "Ok, we goofed, we listened to you and we're rolling back everything" would go a long way towards restoring gamers' trust.

If this means they are talking away the sharing features, I won't be happy. I don't sell games, I don't buy discs, and I would rather MS keep pushing forward.

You don't need 24 hour check ins to enable sharing, you realize.

iOS does perfectly fine without any check ins, so long as the user is authorized; the only check occurs are during install and update, which is apparently reasonable given how many people don't complain.

TLDR; validate the system during setup, create an account to tie to the system, tie software to the account during install, and revalidate that the account is still authorized when the software is updated. Keep sharing across accounts for as many accounts as MS allows.